Two thoughts:
1: There is no correlation between success at the trade table and actual success. We overpaid so much for Tom Boyd at the trade table and we know how that worked out. High draft picks bust, mid range draft picks become Z.Merrett or Mclean or Daniel, sometimes you even uncover Dahl and JJ in the same rookie draft. Careers are ruined by attitudes and personal failings or are cut short by injury. What we actually receive for Stringer is almost inconsequential in many senses because we've already (currently) lost having 2015 Stringer in our forward line for the next 10 years. Chances are that a measly hit-or-miss draft pick won't ever provide compensation for our loss. What is more important and more crucial to success is attitude, culture and character, as evidenced by our Glorious Premiership and Richmond's triumph. If Stringer's presence is the antithesis of the attitude we need, we are better off losing him for nothing. Clubs lose great players for nothing all the time. It's a loss, but not a big loss in the grand scheme of things - Griffen, Libba's knee, going back the Hawks stuffed consecutive high picks on Ellis, Thorp and Dowler and still managed a dynasty when those guys should have been at their peak. What happens at the trade table can be an extension of culture - there's no point showing the 17 other clubs that we are open for business at any price that gets set.
2: If we wanted Stringer out at all costs, then Essendon boxed us in perfectly and we should have dealt early. The fact that we didn't deal means we are either genuinely happy to have him back, or we were bluffing. Either way you gotta cop the consequences of your decisions - if we were bluffing and we lost then so be in. I think it's time now to move on from trading with Essendon either way. If we were bluffing, we need to facilitate a trade with Geelong or another club, even if we have to sell him for unders. If we bluffed, Essendon called it. So we recoup whatever we can from this investment gone bad and work with Geelong for something as palatable as possible. Or, if we are actually not forcing Jake out at all costs, we need to accept that he's deflated his value to a point where we can't offload him and he's now worth basically nothing. We need to get cracking on welcoming him back and getting him on the right path. A path that would see us offering him a new contract at the end of 2018. That should be our goal.
We said we would only trade him if the deal was right. Sadly, the deal isn't right. If we were bluffing, we need to cop the consequences and throw ourselves and our resources into Jake's rehabilitation. If we really must get rid of him fire-sale style to preserve our culture and attitude, then so be it (shame about the failed bluff) and we get on the phone to Geelong.
1: There is no correlation between success at the trade table and actual success. We overpaid so much for Tom Boyd at the trade table and we know how that worked out. High draft picks bust, mid range draft picks become Z.Merrett or Mclean or Daniel, sometimes you even uncover Dahl and JJ in the same rookie draft. Careers are ruined by attitudes and personal failings or are cut short by injury. What we actually receive for Stringer is almost inconsequential in many senses because we've already (currently) lost having 2015 Stringer in our forward line for the next 10 years. Chances are that a measly hit-or-miss draft pick won't ever provide compensation for our loss. What is more important and more crucial to success is attitude, culture and character, as evidenced by our Glorious Premiership and Richmond's triumph. If Stringer's presence is the antithesis of the attitude we need, we are better off losing him for nothing. Clubs lose great players for nothing all the time. It's a loss, but not a big loss in the grand scheme of things - Griffen, Libba's knee, going back the Hawks stuffed consecutive high picks on Ellis, Thorp and Dowler and still managed a dynasty when those guys should have been at their peak. What happens at the trade table can be an extension of culture - there's no point showing the 17 other clubs that we are open for business at any price that gets set.
2: If we wanted Stringer out at all costs, then Essendon boxed us in perfectly and we should have dealt early. The fact that we didn't deal means we are either genuinely happy to have him back, or we were bluffing. Either way you gotta cop the consequences of your decisions - if we were bluffing and we lost then so be in. I think it's time now to move on from trading with Essendon either way. If we were bluffing, we need to facilitate a trade with Geelong or another club, even if we have to sell him for unders. If we bluffed, Essendon called it. So we recoup whatever we can from this investment gone bad and work with Geelong for something as palatable as possible. Or, if we are actually not forcing Jake out at all costs, we need to accept that he's deflated his value to a point where we can't offload him and he's now worth basically nothing. We need to get cracking on welcoming him back and getting him on the right path. A path that would see us offering him a new contract at the end of 2018. That should be our goal.
We said we would only trade him if the deal was right. Sadly, the deal isn't right. If we were bluffing, we need to cop the consequences and throw ourselves and our resources into Jake's rehabilitation. If we really must get rid of him fire-sale style to preserve our culture and attitude, then so be it (shame about the failed bluff) and we get on the phone to Geelong.
Last edited:
